Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[PJ.]

I'm pissed that people left Zilla of the hook. She's obviously the most scummy player in the game. I'm keeping my vote here. Also, I'm not reading all these big post. There is NO need for huge posts like this.

Also, GIEFF all of those quotes were from like..20 pages ago. Drop it.

[Dourgrim]

My theories about who are scum with Zilla aren't terribly relevant unless Zilla is dead and scum. I pointed out my theory on you specifically because GIEFF was using your on/off the wagon as a point against it, and I didn't see how that affected Zilla-scum at all. I don't care if people aren't giving those theories any credence, because they aren't relevant until we learn about Zilla.

Fair enough. However, if it isn't relevant, it probably shouldn't be crowding the already-long thread posts.

For instance, BB. I don't think he's scum if Zilla is scum. What you're essentially asking me to do is ignore Zilla and then evaluate whether or not I believe BB to be scum. The problem is, it wouldn't make sense for me to do that, because I strongly believe Zilla to be scum, which would make BB likely town. My evidence is that BB is town based on my evidence that Zilla is scum. I'm not going to just ignore that.

If you can't make an objective case on even someone like BB without involving your established case on Zilla, then you're tunnelling. Links are strong, yes, but they can't rule your analysis of the other players. If they happen to go along with another point or two that are strong enough, fine.

You're asking me to compromise and find other lynches I will agree with. That's not going to happen. It's not a matter of me "shutting myself out" or ignoring cases out of my irrational pursuit of Zilla. It's a matter of me being convinced Zilla is scum and my opinion that it would be wrong for the town to lynch anyone else.

And yes, I realize I'm being arrogant. I'm saying that I know who is scum and those who aren't in support of the Zilla lynch are wrong. That's essentially what everyone else is doing as well, though. I'm just doing it more prevalently.

This scares the hell out of me. There are more than one scum in this game, Goat. Why would you not be OK with lynching someone else if they were proven to be scum?

Dour: Can you give me a breakdown of the points that you think makes Panzer likely to be scum? Then could you explain your stance on Zilla. What about my case on her did you agree with? What about her is keeping you from voting her? Finally, could you explain why you think the points against Panzer outweigh the points against Zilla.

No. I'm not going to start rehashing everything that I've said about Panzer and Zilla yet again. I've announced my reasons for voting Panzer (earlier

today

, for Christ's sake!), listed the other people whose lynch I would support, and I'm not going to continue filling the thread with rehashes to satisfy one player who admits himself he's only interested in one lynch today. If you're happy with your target, fine, good for you. Your target happens to be #3 on my list as well, and if no one wants to pursue Panzer as a viable lynch, and GIEFF appears to be above reproach right now, I'll join on the Zilla wagon. The case you've made is valid enough to warrant a lynch.

unvote: Panzer

vote: Zilla

vote: end the damn day

(Just noticed GIEFF's simulpost: he's right about Panzer. Well said.)

[GIEFF]

Which, specifically, of my points against Zilla is invalidated by emotion? Whether or not emotion is involved, my case against her is not based on it. How does any of my case become somehow less valid?

None of them, specifically. They are excellent points, and I think Zilla is scum.

It isn't your case that becomes less valid, it is lynching Zilla based on it that I am afraid of. You have had such a singular focus on Zilla that you are practically ignoring the other players and their possible alignments, unless they are in relation to Zilla. If your scumdar is as good as you think it is and you really think Zilla is scum, then use it to help us catch more.

Don't you think it's possible that you focused on Zilla BEFORE you convinced yourself she was scum, and just never looked back? You were emotional, so you dug through Zilla's posts, found (legitimately and logically) scummy things, and then pushed her case. But if emotion weren't involved, you would have dug through other players' posts, too.

And again, the emotional-Goat angle is less important to me than the fact that B_B, mykonian and Panzer were all demanding her to claim, and that Dourgrim hopped on so soon after claiming there was too much WIFOM in a Zilla lynch, and so soon after agreeing with your argument that Zilla was a better lynch than Panzer. You yourself have questioned Dourgrim on this point, and I don't think he's answered it. Dour, you talked about the Zilla WIFOM being an issue, but that doesn't explain why you RE-voted for Zilla after I unvoted her. Or why you are re-voting her again now. Or why you agreed Zilla was a better lynch than Panzer, but then soon switched right back to Panzer again.

------

Also, GIEFF all of those quotes were from like..20 pages ago. Drop it.

I think you should be directing this at mykonian. He is the one who continues to call my case "LAL." If he continues to lie, I will continue to show him why he is wrong. He claimed to have been convinced before, but either he was lying, or he forgot.

[mykonian]

mykonian, are you happy with your vote on springlullaby? Why haven't you mentioned her again since voting for her? Having trouble fabricating reasons?

would you stop trying to put ideas in the minds of people by using rhetorical questions?

I have clearly voted her because she lurks, but can't be replaced as she picked up prods. That were my reasons, that are my reasons. And seen her little activity, little has changed about my reasons. Part of my vote was also to get the town talking about something new. Goat did this, and I have tried to explain to him why it could be a good lynch, even if the odds of spring being scum are even to a random lynch.

But thank you for telling me:

unvote vote GIEFF

not that I think that my case (that will come) will do any good, because panzer won't read it, and believes zilla is scum, GIEFF won't agree, Goat has already found scum, zilla thinks I'm scum etc. And everybody thinks this day has gone on for too long, and thats why we will never change our lynchee, even if we wanted to. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, I am still waiting to hear if you have carefully read Zilla's case on mykonian, and to hear whether you think he extended his case on me in a similar way to Zilla extending her case on you. Read the top half of 787.

I did read her case. The majority of it is "fluff": Her pulling out Mykonian posts and saying this is scummy, but not really giving anything to show why it is. Her long case against him just kind of points out a lot of things he's done, but I don't really see where she actually presents a case of why he is scum.

I would argue that Mykonian did extend his case. He was attacking you for LAL, you defended against that point, and so he picked up others.

Here are the differences, though: Mykonian debated the LAL thing with you and dropped it after you convinced him. Granted, he has gone back and argued it again a few times, but he is at least willing to debate it with you, and was (at least initially) willing to drop it when he was shown to be wrong. Zilla, on the other hand, merely brushed aside my points, and moved on to others. That difference is crucial.

I equate it something like this:

Mykonian: A
GIEFF: A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: no, you're missing my explanation of why A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: Read these posts where I show you how A is wrong.
Mykonian: Ok, I drop A. What about B, C?

whereas I equate me and Zilla like this:

Zilla: A, B, C
Goat: A, B, C, are wrong
Zilla: D, E, F
Goat: D, E, F are wrong
Zilla: G, H, where G is the way you said D, E, F were wrong
Goat: Unbelievable...

I also think you are misrepresenting him a bit. He brought up LAL because Zilla specifically questioned him on it. Then you attacked him bringing it up again. Do you see what I mean?

Dour: You're right, I'm tunneling, however, I don't see that as being an issue. Also, you misrep me a bit. If someone else were "proven" to be scum, yes I would lynch them. Based on the current information, that is not the case. Also, I asked you for that information to help my read on you, mostly.

-------

I think there is a bit of a misconception that I am ignoring stuff. I've read every post in this game, and many of them I've scoured far more than I should. Just because I believe Zilla is scum doesn't mean I haven't been trying to determine the alignments of others. That's why I ask Mykonian for his opinion every time I present some new aspect to the Zilla case, or question subgenius or Ting on their stances, or question GIEFF on his stance on Zilla, etc. Much of my discussion is based on Zilla, but I'm still trying to figure out the alignments of the other players.

I think Zilla is scum.

it is lynching Zilla based on it that I am afraid of.

Either you don't think she is scum, or there's some reason why scum shouldn't be lynched that I am not aware of.

You have had such a singular focus on Zilla that you are practically ignoring the other players and their possible alignments, unless they are in relation to Zilla. If your scumdar is as good as you think it is and you really think Zilla is scum, then use it to help us catch more.

I'm stalled. Zilla as scum is my perception on the game. I can't evaluate whether or not I'm correct on my reads on other players without knowing that information, and I can't reject that information in evaluating other players. For example, say you were a cop and you investigated someone and found that they were scum. Let's say that person was clamoring really hard for the lynch of someone else the prior day. You might then think the 2nd person is town by nature of your information on the first. Would it be rational for you to say "I'm going to ignore my cop investigation and look at the 2nd player based solely on his play?" No, it wouldn't. You have a giant reason to believe that they are town, and ignoring it would be foolish. While I don't have confirmation that Zilla is scum, I am fairly convinced, and I can't just brush that aside when considering other players.

Don't you think it's possible that you focused on Zilla BEFORE you convinced yourself she was scum, and just never looked back? You were emotional, so you dug through Zilla's posts, found (legitimately and logically) scummy things, and then pushed her case. But if emotion weren't involved, you would have dug through other players' posts, too.

My case on BB came

during

Zilla's initial set of back and forth's with me. I was pushing for his lynch during the period where Zilla was pushing for mine. Also, this isn't relevant. Does it matter what caused me to look through Zilla's posts? Maybe I decide to look through her posts because her avatar is flashy and attracts my attention, and then I realize that I think she is scum. Is my case invalidated because of that reason?

[GIEFF]

I'm pissed that people left Zilla of the hook.

She's obviously the most scummy player in the game.

I find this statement by you to be ridiculous, based on your epic Zilla-waffles.

*cue Benny Hill music*

(underline and italics are mine)

I think this (

B_B's unvote of Panzer

) is

by far the scummiest thing in the thread

. When I look at this post, it reads: "Panzerwagon 09 as lost tremendous ammounts of momentum, blah blah blah blah. *hop of the wagon*"

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday

This is a much better lead then SL.

Your not asking to be involved in the game (you can involve yourself by reading the thread and posting opinions). Us giving you summaries of old stuff isn't gonna take you into account either, it's just gonna tell you look here. You are trying to find an easy place to stow away.

Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday

This is far far scummier. then what BB has been doing

but I want answers BB.

The above two quotes came IN THE SAME POST.

296

In light of this arguement, I'm going

Unvote:Zilla

This is because it genuinely looks like 2 townies going at it because of something that was bullshit due to a player being lazy. Her uber-long post, have proved to me that she's not lazy, although I didn't like how zilla was asking(BSing us), I'm going to buy her reasoning.

Genuinely looks like 2 townies going at it, eh?

And then,

6 minutes later

(!):

WOW WAIT A SECOND.

Didn't you just that being the first person to say SK was completely ridiculous and minute and not a big deal. holy christ, again I'm gonna have to

Unvote. Vote:Zilla

I now see her as willing to say/do anything in order for people to see her as pro-town.

At least this flip-flop didn't occur in the same post. 6 minutes is an improvement.

618

I think Zilla is pretty much Caught Scum. But that's just me. To me, nothing she has said has changed my intial opinion of her.

I should have noticed this when you said it. But WOW is that wrong.



And now you've gone into shut-down mode. Could it be that your indecision between B_B and Zilla was just due to the fact that you were relieved the lynch wasn't going to be you?

[mykonian]

ok, I am not close to finished, but it is probably to big for some people already: here are page 1 to 5 about GIEFF.



This starts with his doubtful actions while attacking Panzer. Panzer votes in post 36.

in post 67, panzer calms down. Till that point, I have seen not a single attack from GIEFF on Panzer, he was more questioning Goat and Dourgrim.

in post 82/83 GIEFF still attacks dourgrim, summarizes the activity in the game (he accuses a few people of (active) lurking)

panzer is not mentioned, while it is clear GIEFF read the complete thread

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way

he

said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

Revisionist history. Here is what you said:

Also Mykonian, We should ALL want to lynch mafia.

Unvote, Vote:Mykonian

For not wanting to lynch mafia. I'm pretty sure this is a huge scum slip.

Are you claiming that this post by you was a joke? It sure looked serious to me.

Suddenly that "he" became "I" in GIEFF's mind...

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

and after that, the big word, panzer LIED!

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote

Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

goat points out, this is GIEFF's reaction, with a counterargument:

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

[Zilla]

As GIEFF said when paraphrasing an infamous dictator, repeat a lie enough and it will become truth.

Goat has done this to me, and he shows it in his last post.

Zilla: A, B, C
Goat: A, B, C, are wrong
Zilla: D, E, F
Goat: D, E, F are wrong
Zilla: G, H, where G is the way you said D, E, F were wrong
Goat: Unbelievable...

This isn't at all what the case was, he likes to try to simplify it with letters so he can misconstrue it more easily. I can't address all of the problems using the same simple letter format, though I can address one, and that is that I don't drop my cases, he simply ignores them.

Zilla: A, supporting evidence B and C.
Goat: B is wrong, A must be wrong. Also, C is right, but isn't scummy.
Zilla: A, supporting evidence B isn't wrong, C is scummy, also case D with supporting evidence E and F.
Goat: I already proved B was wrong, A must be wrong, C is still right, but still not scummy. D is wrong because you misunderstand E, and F is just deflection.
Zilla: A, because B wasn't refuted, your defense of E shows you don't understand my accusation, how can F be deflection when I'm attacking, D is still valid, also your shoddy answers constitute case G.
Goat: I won't mention A anymore, E is still wrong, F and G are both deflection, and now I present case 1 on Zilla.
Zilla: Case 1 is misrepresentation, you didn't answer A, so I won't mention it either, F and G aren't deflection.




You get the point. If you want, I WILL summarize my case on Goat... again. I don't think he answered the last summary very well either.

I should further point out that even since my rebuttal to Goat's case, GIEFF is fond of saying that I lied about my reasons for something. Show me where. There hasn't been a specific accusation that I haven't answered. It honestly feels like repeating a lie to make it truth, and then that truth is self-perpetuated.

If it's my reasons for voting Goat, he never answered for being unaccountable, trying to shut down information sources, having to fight tooth and nail to get him to give his current account of players, his hem-haw stance on Panzer (suddenly must be town because I'm scum, and because Panzer is voting for me), his chainsaw defense of both Panzer and Mykonian... and this is all from right when I replaced in!

I've "extended" my case due to his misrepresentations on me, poor answers to those accusations, mistaken accounts of me, possible links to other scummy players given how those players interact with him, tunneling, and, I guess I'll have to admit, because we were locked in conflict.

Now, can someone show me where I lied?

[Zilla]

Also, after reading Mykonian, I still find him scummy, but I do have to say that reading him in isolation wasn't as damning as I thought it would be. I'm still HIGHLY critical that he was pushing for a policy lynch on SpringLulliby. That would be a waste of a day unless she was scum, and he doesn't feel she actually has a good chance of being scum. It's basically a call to go to night, and it's doubly beneficial for scum because, if they know SL is town, they're going to bag a free townie for the day.

Also, I saw that GIEFF called Mykonian out on his vote on SL, and Mykonian changed his vote to GIEFF. When I read the baiting in GIEFF's post, I thought to myself that Mykonian was going to switch, and he did.

I'm still very critical of Panzer, and I feel he is a good choice for a lynch today as well. I'll read him in isolation next. It may be that he is a better choice than Mykonian, though at present, I feel Mykonian is scummier. I still think they are a likely pair.

[mykonian]

Also, after reading Mykonian, I still find him scummy, but I do have to say that reading him in isolation wasn't as damning as I thought it would be. I'm still HIGHLY critical that he was pushing for a policy lynch on SpringLulliby. That would be a waste of a day unless she was scum, and he doesn't feel she actually has a good chance of being scum. It's basically a call to go to night, and it's doubly beneficial for scum because, if they know SL is town, they're going to bag a free townie for the day.

Also, I saw that GIEFF called Mykonian out on his vote on SL, and Mykonian changed his vote to GIEFF. When I read the baiting in GIEFF's post, I thought to myself that Mykonian was going to switch, and he did.

I don't know what spring is, and I think it likely that I won't know for a long time. Simply because lynching a lurker is not accepted, and scum is probably not stupid enough to kill someone who helps them. Plus that there is very little scumhunting from Spring, which means that we will lose little if she proves to be town.

and of course I switch, GIEFF has been first choice all the time, a few posts ago, I thought I was still on him, but it proved not to be, so I voted him now.

BTW, what did you think about that post I made about early-game GIEFF?

[Zilla]

Lurker lynching would be acceptable if there was no activity and no valid targets; as it stands, there are many valid targets, heated discussion, and many cases that are well established. I'll admit lurking scum would get away with murder here, but you advocated lynching Spring even when you felt that GIEFF was likely to be scum. That makes no sense.

[mykonian]

Lurker lynching would be acceptable if there was no activity and no valid targets; as it stands, there are many valid targets, heated discussion, and many cases that are well established. I'll admit lurking scum would get away with murder here, but you advocated lynching Spring even when you felt that GIEFF was likely to be scum. That makes no sense.

in a game where the activity was lowering? I think it made perfectly sense to get some attention on a lurker, maybe even some real pressure, but in any case talk about the usefullness of a lurker-lynch (something I believe is not too bad)

[springlullaby]

You're accusing me of being lazy? Funny.

My stances aren't lazy. I've caught scum. I've worked for 10+ pages trying to get this scum lynched. There's nothing lazy about that.

Just because you wrote 10k words - with an incredibly high amount repetition - doesn't mean you aren't lazy in your scumhunting. From your last overview, all independent analysis of players had mostly town verdict. And all scum verdicts were associated to Zilla's alignment, and in a very vague fashion nonetheless. That just sucks: scumlinking is the most despicable form of scumhunting day 1, using them as more than possible indication is at best sloppy, at worst scummy.

What is crappy about me basing my read of an entire game around my ideas of who is scum and town? I think Zilla is overwhelming scum. That has influenced my read of the game. And? Do I somehow need to come up with a couple more hypotheses because the one I am convinced of apparently isn't enough?

You don't 'need' to do anything.

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

Yes, and that's one step too early which means that your one step means exactly nothing.

-------------------

Goat: I have read your case against Zilla, I think it sucks. The margin of errors in the possible meaning she could have intended with words like "hardly" and "outstanding" are such that your accusation of her lying reposes on very shaky grounds.

-------------------

Anyway, you won't see me anywhere near a Goat or Zilla wagon today, the risk of them being both town is such that it is not a chance I'm willing to take atm.

I've just seen something scummy from Panzer, brb.

[qwints]

I find scumlinking to be a fairly useful technique early on. It certainly isn't a perfect tool, but it often comes up with solid tells.

The amount of reading in this game is just ridiculous. I don't like panzer and dourgrim's implicit claim, however, that those with a lot of content are anti-town.

[mykonian]

I find scumlinking to be a fairly useful technique early on. It certainly isn't a perfect tool, but it often comes up with solid tells.

The amount of reading in this game is just ridiculous. I don't like panzer and dourgrim's implicit claim, however, that those with a lot of content are anti-town.

you are trying quite hard not to post too much...

[springlullaby]

I'm pissed that people left Zilla of the hook. She's obviously the most scummy player in the game. I'm keeping my vote here.

Also, I'm not reading all these big post.

There is NO need for huge posts like this.

That's definite scumtell right there.

This is scum betting on natural townie resentment toward tedious long posts to get away with not paying attention.

Unvote Vote Panzer

[Dourgrim]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

[mykonian]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

Keep dreaming, it is not going to happen. Like we are going to lynch someone else then Zilla...

[PJ.]

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

[Goatrevolt]

If it's my reasons for voting Goat, he never answered for:

Being unaccountable.

I answered this point numerous times. You're accusing me of being unaccountable for not giving you a summary of the game, and later not providing my stance on Panzer. A summary has nothing to do with accountability, because I'm accountable for the stances I've taken summary or not. I wanted you to go back and read the game before having people influence you. The panzer point I'll address in a moment.

Trying to shut down information sources.

I answered this many times as well. I can't shut down information that is already in the thread. You wanted a summary of the game (in essence, people telling you what has happened thus far). A summary contains no new information, it's just a restating of old information. I can't shut down an information source when there is no new information.

Having to fight tooth and nail to get him to give his current account of players

. This is wrong. You asked me for my stance on MacavityLock. I told you to read the thread, where my stance was stated multiple times. You asked me for a current stance on Panzer. I linked to 295, which contained a current stance on Panzer. You then harassed me about it for a long time, so I finally wrote out my stance on Panzer. You commented "Finally Goat gives his stance" but yet didn't even realize that the stance I had written out was almost word for word a direct copy of the stance I had given you in 295. To me, that suggests you didn't even look at 295.

his hem-haw stance on Panzer (suddenly must be town because I'm scum, and because Panzer is voting for me).

I gave reasons for that. Want to dispute those reasons, or are you just going to attack stances without any underlying rationale for why they aren't right? And originally I had him as a scum buddy to you. That opinion has changed based on new information.

his chainsaw defense of both Panzer and Mykonian.

I don't think you understand what a chainsaw defense is. A chainsaw defense is when some attacks a player, and rather than defend that player, I instead discredit the attacker. Where have I chainsawed Panzer? Panzer's attacker was GIEFF. I have not discredited his Panzer case or thrown suspicion on him at all. You were attacking Mykonian. I defended specifically against your case on Mykonian (a defense you did not bother to address other than to toss suspicion on me for "chainsawing"), and I wasn't even attacking you at that point in the game. That's not a chainsaw defense...that's a defense-defense. What about my defense of Mykonian is a "chainsaw defense" while your defense of BB was not? What was scummy about my defense of Mykonian? You never addressed my points or my reasoning for thinking your case was poor, you merely dismissed it as scummy without underlying rationale.

[GIEFF]

@Gieff: You completely spin doctored those post. READ THE FUCKING POST. This right here is why I quit reading large post because it's people just grasping and we need this day to end.

I told you I was posting WHILE I was catching up on the thread. I was posting intial reactions. B_B was Incredibly scummy, but then Zilla replaced in. Also, in those 6 minutes(in between my "Contradictions") Zilla had made the post in question. With each new post. Each post adds to the thread. Hers was a huge scumtell and I had already sadi that those two were scummy. Please quit spin doctoring post, especially ones from 20 pages ago.

Huge FoS:GIEFF

Explain what you mean by spin doctoring, and show me exactly where I did it, and why it is spin doctoring.

You have gone back and forth between Zilla and B_B MANY times, so it's ridiculous for you to expect anybody to take you seriously when you say that Zilla is "obviously" the most scummy player in the game. That is my point.

[Goatrevolt]

Just because you wrote 10k words - with an incredibly high amount repetition - doesn't mean you aren't lazy in your scumhunting. From your last overview, all independent analysis of players had mostly town verdict. And all scum verdicts were associated to Zilla's alignment, and in a very vague fashion nonetheless. That just sucks: scumlinking is the most despicable form of scumhunting day 1, using them as more than possible indication is at best sloppy, at worst scummy.

You don't get it. My pressure on Zilla is scum hunting. I have "scum hunted" her to the point where I am convinced she is scum. You're now accusing me of being lazy because I have only focused my

recent

attacks on one player, who is ridiculously likely to be scum. That's not being lazy at all. That's being focused/singleminded, etc. and nobody has given me any indication why that is scummy. There's no good reason why I should ignore Zilla and consider other people to be scum, when I don't think they are anywhere close to Zilla's level.

Also, I don't know what your accusation about "mostly town" verdicts and other nonsense comes from. I was exceptionally clear in my post where I stood on everyone. Out of the 10 players besides me and Zilla, I listed 6 as town, 2 as "maybe" and 2 as scum. I didn't provide reasoning, but I wasn't vague. All of my reads are influenced by my stance on Zilla. They are not all based entirely on that. For example, I gave reasoning for why I believed Mykonian to be town completely independent of Zilla.

Scumlinking is not my form of scumhunting. You know this. My case on Zilla has absolutely nothing to do with scumlinking, so your accusation that I am using it as my method of scumhunting is wrong. I'm using logic/reasoning/evidence as my method of scumhunting. Links to Zilla is what comes next.

As for deducing the alignment of others, I'm working 1 step ahead. That's something to keep in mind for tomorrow. Nobody in the thread comes close to the same level of scumminess as Zilla. At this point, I'm working on two things. First of all, I'm trying to convince others to lynch Zilla. Second of all, I'm trying to determine who is scum/town assuming Zilla is scum. In the unlikely scenario that Zilla is town, I will have to scrap all that. For now, that is my take.

Yes, and that's one step too early which means that your one step means exactly nothing.

I never argued it meant anything right now. Do you see me pushing a lynch on Dour, or Qwints? No. I'm pushing a lynch on Zilla, who I think is scum.

Goat: I have read your case against Zilla, I think it sucks. The margin of errors in the possible meaning she could have intended with words like "hardly" and "outstanding" are such that your accusation of her lying reposes on very shaky grounds.

I think the meaning of "outstanding" is pretty freaking clear. Up to that point in the game, GIEFF had the single most outstanding case of the game with his case on Panzer. Zilla even noted that it was

possible

to attack GIEFF over tunneling on Panzer. It's not possible to attack someone over tunneling unless they have an outstanding stance. So when Zilla says that GIEFF didn't have any outstanding stances besides Dour, she's lying.

-----

GIEFF: You are taking panzer's posts out of context.

The first post where you note his opinion changing was a post where he was chronologically reading through the game. For him to jump on BB, but then later read a post that made him want to jump on Zilla instead isn't really suspicious. It's a chronological post, and his opinion will change as he reads newer posts.

When you discuss the 6 minute flip-flop, what you don't note is Zilla posting in between that period. In that post, she uses Mykonian mentioning the SK as a point against him, despite having previously said that the SK discussion was meaningless and a waste of time, etc. Panzer changed his mind as a direct result of that post, and he had a valid reason, which doesn't make it suspicious.

[GIEFF]

in post 67, panzer calms down. Till that point, I have seen not a single attack from GIEFF on Panzer, he was more questioning Goat and Dourgrim.

So? In what way is this scummy?

in post 82/83 GIEFF still attacks dourgrim, summarizes the activity in the game (he accuses a few people of (active) lurking) panzer is not mentioned, while it is clear GIEFF read the complete thread

So? In what way is this scummy?

And then GIEFF has found a new trail. Panzer's view of my post is not scummy (He knows I joked(?), but he thinks I showed my allignment in this joke), but in GIEFF's mind this is an contradiction: jokepost and scumtell don't fit in one post according to GIEFF. This is not a contradiction, but GIEFF makes one out of it.

I've read this a few times, and I'm confused at what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that I think that a jokepost means that there can't be a scumtell in it? The scumtell isn't the fact that it was or wasn't a joke-vote; it's the fact that Panzer lied about it.

Panzer never said I thought you antitown, Panzer said that post showed wrong intention, or wrong view on the game or such a thing.

This is 100% false.

Here is proof.

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Now that you realize you have made a mistake, do you think you could consider revising (I guess I should say re-revising) your opinion of what my case actually was?

Panzer posted it weird, had a gut feeling on my post, and GIEFF makes out of the "my joke"/"Panzer's gut" a contradiction, a lie. This was not the obvious lie, this is more town that doesn't tell exactly what happened and is misrepresented by scum (GIEFF)

This is very difficult to understand. I think the language barrier is a lot wider than I realized up until this point. Are you trying to say Panzer wasn't really lying?

Panzer lied, and it was obvious. He even said himself that my point was valid, and that he had to check if he was scum.

The fact that Panzer lied should not be disputed on page 33. It was resolved long ago. I don't know whether to attribute your views to the language thing, or to a conscious desire to try to shape the past to fit your current views.

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote
Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie.

Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum

, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

bolded doesn't logically follow, and that's why your logic is incorrect. He voted on a gut feeling about that post, not what I said.

Yes, it very much follows. And again, this was practically PROVEN long ago, to the point that even Panzer agreed. Why do you still refuse to?


And I shouldn't even have to tell you why it follows, because PANZER ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE ASSUMED YOU THOUGHT I WAS ANTI-TOWN.

This is ridiculous, mykonian. Flat-out ridiculous. You have nothing. You are trying to argue that I am scum because I made an argument 30 pages ago that is 100% verifiably accurate, yet you STILL think is false.

Ridiculous.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt?

Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

By bolding the first part of that sentence, he twists its meaning. The fact that I was not eager to lynch mafia made Panzer vote me, not that I called GIEFF antitown...

The conclusion is what I think is meant by LAL

What the hell? So you did see that post? And you are still arguing this? Your case on me is that you think the following quote is NOT Panzer saying that you called me anti-town?

Ridiculous.

I don't think anybody disagreed with my underlined question, yet here you are, doing it 30 pages later to try to justify your bogus vote.


------

GIEFF: You are taking panzer's posts out of context.

The first post where you note his opinion changing was a post where he was chronologically reading through the game. For him to jump on BB, but then later read a post that made him want to jump on Zilla instead isn't really suspicious. It's a chronological post, and his opinion will change as he reads newer posts.

When you discuss the 6 minute flip-flop, what you don't note is Zilla posting in between that period. In that post, she uses Mykonian mentioning the SK as a point against him, despite having previously said that the SK discussion was meaningless and a waste of time, etc. Panzer changed his mind as a direct result of that post, and he had a valid reason, which doesn't make it suspicious.

That's not relevant. The point I am making is that it is clear as day that Panzer should not think Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player, considering how rapidly he has switched his vote between them. The reasons for the vote changes are not important; what is important is the fact that Panzer claims he view on Zilla has never changed (even after saying she "genuinely" looks like a townie), and that Zilla is "obviously" the scummiest player.

Calling it "misrepresentation" is deflecting from the point I am making. Go ahead, throw the quote in; it doesn't change my argument, it just dilutes it with un-related words.

[Goatrevolt]

Fair enough. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

[GIEFF]

Here are the differences, though: Mykonian debated the LAL thing with you and dropped it after you convinced him. Granted, he has gone back and argued it again a few times, but he is at least willing to debate it with you, and was (at least initially) willing to drop it when he was shown to be wrong. Zilla, on the other hand, merely brushed aside my points, and moved on to others. That difference is crucial.

I disagree. It was a LOT more than "a few" times. Just about every time I've had to re-explain myself, it has been on account of mykonian not understanding me.

And he was NOT willing to debate it with me. I tried to put it into 4 easy points, and he just ignored them, and STILL has ignored them. B_B tried to help him out by responding for him, but mykonian still hasn't mentioned them.

Mykonian: A
GIEFF: A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: no, you're missing my explanation of why A is wrong
Mykonian: A
GIEFF: Read these posts where I show you how A is wrong.
Mykonian: Ok, I drop A. What about B, C?

Here is how I see it:

A = my actual reason for voting Panzer, including the somewhat detailed and subtle explanation about why lying about your reasoning for a vote is so scummy.
B = "We should lynch every player who lies, no matter how minor."


GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.



And if you think I am exaggerating the number of times mykonian said "B is wrong", here are hyperlinks:

GIEFF: A. Vote Panzer.
mykonian: B is wrong. FOS GIEFF
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: You aren't even listening to me. I'm not saying B. Stop it.
mykonian: B is wrong.
GIEFF: Not B. A
mykonian: Oh, you're not saying B. You're saying A.
GIEFF: Yes, I'm saying A.
mykonian: I can believe GIEFF was really saying A. unvote GIEFF.
*time passes*
mykonian: hmm, wasn't GIEFF really saying B that whole time?
GIEFF: No. I was saying A the whole time. *GIEFF shows mykonian proof*
mykonian: When I said you said A earlier, what I meant is that you said B
GIEFF: Stop calling it B.
*mykonian doesn't answer*
*time passes*
*GIEFF attacks mykonian for being wishy-washy*
mykonian: I think GIEFF is the scummiest player.
mykonian: C. re-vote GIEFF
GIEFF: Others did C, too; not just me.
mykonian: B is wrong.


And this is why I became upset. I should not have to repeat myself that often, language barrier or no.